Search

Abstract Greater sage‐grouse (hereafter sage‐grouse; Centrocercus urophasianus) populations have declined across their range. Increased nest predation as a result of anthropogenic land use is one mechanism proposed to explain these declines. However, sage‐grouse contend with a diverse suite of nest predators that vary in functional traits (e.g., search tactics or hunting mode) and abundance. Consequently, generalizing about factors influencing nest fate is challenging. Identifying the explicit predator species responsible for nest predation events is, therefore, critical to understanding causal mechanisms linking land use to patterns of sage‐grouse nest success. Cattle grazing is often assumed to adversely affect sage‐grouse recruitment by reducing grass height (and hence cover), thereby facilitating nest detection by predators. However, recent evidence found little support for the hypothesized effect of grazing on nest fate at the pasture scale. Rather, nest success appears to be similar on pastures grazed at varying intensities. One possible explanation for the lack of observed effect involves a localized response by one or more nest predators. The presence of cattle may cause a temporary reduction in predator density and/or use within a pasture (the cattle avoidance hypothesis). The cattle avoidance hypothesis predicts a decreased probability of at least one sage‐grouse nest predator predating sage‐grouse nests in pastures with livestock relative to pastures without livestock present during the nesting season. To test the cattle avoidance hypothesis, we collected predator DNA from eggshells from predated nests and used genetic methods to identify the sage‐grouse nest predator(s) responsible for the predation event. We evaluated the influence of habitat and grazing on predator‐specific nest predation. We evaluated the efficacy of our genetic method by deploying artificial nests with trail cameras and compared the results of our genetic method to the species captured via trail camera. Our molecular methods identified at least one nest predator captured predating artificial nests via trail camera for 33 of 35 (94%) artificial nests. We detected nest predators via our molecular analysis at 76 of 114 (67%) predated sage‐grouse nests. The primary predators detected at sage‐grouse nests were coyotes (Canis latrans) and corvids (Corvidea). Grazing did not influence the probability of nest predation by either coyotes or corvids. Sagebrush canopy cover was negatively associated with the probability a coyote predated a nest, distance to water was positively associated with the probability a corvid predated a nest, and average minimum temperature was negatively associated with the probability that either a coyote or a corvid predated a nest. Our study provides a framework for implementing an effective, non‐invasive method for identifying sage‐grouse nest predators that can be used to better understand how management actions at local and regional scales may impact an important component of sage‐grouse recruitment.

Abstract For wildlife inhabiting snowy environments, snow properties such as onset date, depth, strength, and distribution can influence many aspects of ecology, including movement, community dynamics, energy expenditure, and forage accessibility. As a result, snow plays a considerable role in individual fitness and ultimately population dynamics, and its evaluation is, therefore, important for comprehensive understanding of ecosystem processes in regions experiencing snow. Such understanding, and particularly study of how wildlife–snow relationships may be changing, grows more urgent as winter processes become less predictable and often more extreme under global climate change. However, studying and monitoring wildlife–snow relationships continue to be challenging because characterizing snow, an inherently complex and constantly changing environmental feature, and identifying, accessing, and applying relevant snow information at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, often require a detailed understanding of physical snow science and technologies that typically lie outside the expertise of wildlife researchers and managers. We argue that thoroughly assessing the role of snow in wildlife ecology requires substantive collaboration between researchers with expertise in each of these two fields, leveraging the discipline‐specific knowledge brought by both wildlife and snow professionals. To facilitate this collaboration and encourage more effective exploration of wildlife–snow questions, we provide a five‐step protocol: (1) identify relevant snow property information; (2) specify spatial, temporal, and informational requirements; (3) build the necessary datasets; (4) implement quality control procedures; and (5) incorporate snow information into wildlife analyses. Additionally, we explore the types of snow information that can be used within this collaborative framework. We illustrate, in the context of two examples, field observations, remote‐sensing datasets, and four example modeling tools that simulate spatiotemporal snow property distributions and, in some cases, evolutions. For each type of snow data, we highlight the collaborative opportunities for wildlife and snow professionals when designing snow data collection efforts, processing snow remote sensing products, producing tailored snow datasets, and applying the resulting snow information in wildlife analyses. We seek to provide a clear path for wildlife professionals to address wildlife–snow questions and improve ecological inference by integrating the best available snow science through collaboration with snow professionals.

Abstract Monitoring the abundance of rare carnivores is a daunting task for wildlife biologists. Many carnivore populations persist at relatively low densities, public interest is high, and the need for population estimates is great. Recent advances in trail camera technology provide an unprecedented opportunity for biologists to monitor rare species economically. Few studies, however, have conducted rigorous analyses of our ability to estimate abundance of low‐density carnivores with cameras. We used motion‐triggered trail cameras and a space‐to‐event model to estimate gray wolf (Canis lupus) abundance across three study areas in Idaho, USA, 2016–2018. We compared abundance estimates between cameras and noninvasive genetic sampling that had been extensively tested in our study areas. Estimates of mean wolf abundance from camera and genetic surveys were within 22% of one another and 95% CIs overlapped in 2 of the 3 years. A single camera with many detections appeared to bias camera estimates high in 2018. A subsequent bootstrapping procedure produced a population estimate from cameras equal to that derived from genetic sampling, however. Camera surveys were less than half the cost of genetic surveys once initial camera purchases were made. Our results suggest that cameras can be a viable method for estimating wolf abundance across broad landscapes (>10,000 km2).